|
| ▲ | asdff an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| The assumption being made of course cultures must only change from external forces and that they cannot change internally. It comes from an ancient caste based world view where people are defined by their birthright and do not change from this, that we know now is foolish to believe in. |
| |
| ▲ | SmirkingRevenge 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yep. Trying to steer culture is like grasping at smoke Smart phones and social media have impacted culture most places far more than a few immigrants ever could - folks should spend more time worrying about those and less scapegoating of immigrants |
|
|
| ▲ | Arodex 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A citizen is a citizen. You don't create second class citizen, who can see their rights revoked at any time, whereas the other class never has to fear anything like that. That's basic democracy 101. |
|
| ▲ | fasterik an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It goes against the principles of classical liberalism: rule of law, civil liberties, and limited government. I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and say that it's fine if some countries want to strip rights from people on the basis of race or economic class. |
|
| ▲ | lovich an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Stripping citizenship for a reason that doesn’t involve a crime goes a bit beyond not wanting cultural diversity. I know the word is used in cases where it’s hyperbole or just not accurate but there in fact people where the term racist is perfectly applicable. |
|
| ▲ | mmooss 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Not every country wants This phrase is problematic and dangerous: A country doesn't want anything; it's not a person. People use this phrasing to claim some authority (always for what that individual wants, of course) over others who disagree - 'the country wants, and I speak for the country'. More importantly, humans have fundamental individual rights, including freedom - again, not countries but individuals. The rights are no less because some other people don't like the individual - immunity to the majority's desires almost defines rights in a practical sense; otherwise they aren't generally needed. You can't force people to leave or to do anything else because you don't like them. It's dangerous because it's often used to violate rights and rationalize cruelties. |
|
| ▲ | samtp 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Thinking it's atrocious to take away someone's citizenship just because of where they previously came from is in no way a uniquely American thought. In fact it's shared by most people around the world who have a bit of empathy, compassion, and aren't racist. |
| |
| ▲ | otterley 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think what they were saying is that America is generally more tolerant of cultural and ethnic diversity (i.e. it’s the default here) than many other countries. | | |
| ▲ | samtp 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | By granting someone citizenship, the government makes a serious promise to that individual. To break that promise because you don't like where they came from prior to that promise being made is stunningly unethical and lawless behavior. And trying to cover blatant racism with justifications like "tolerance of cultural and ethnic diversity" is cowardly. Just say you judge people who are different than you and are willing to break fundamental promises in order to make them go away. |
|
|
